Re: Multiple abuses from i2pn2.

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

 

. . .

 

 "insults" - i.e. like *your* "NAZI", repeated umpteen times - are
speech, which may or may not have consequences. I don't consider "NAZI"
to be free speech, but won't get a fit about something like "moron". It
all depends.

 

Congratulations. I finally got trolled into posting a followup into this
thread that just won't die. This is reminiscent of the pondscum and
socmen herding attempts that exposed the Big 8 administrators as
complete and utter fools years ago.

 

I'm a Jew. I know full well that the Holocaust didn't occur because
people during the 1930s made lame insults in writing. It's laughable
that in post-WWII de-Nazification that certain countries passed laws
banning the Nazi party and even use of the word "Nazi" entirely. It's a
complete and utter willful misunderstanding of recent history and
insulting to the memory of those who were murdered.

 

It's speech. If you want the government to oppress an idea, then you
oppose free speech. But you don't get to tell people that you don't
consider use of a word that stands for an idea you oppose "free speech".

 

 Don't be silly. Of course I get to tell people that I don't consider
calling someone "NAZI", repeated umpteen times, to be free speech.
That's *my* "free speech".

 
Free speech should belong to everybody as a moral right, even if it's
just a lame insult using a word that does get censored in parts of the
world.

  True. But as I said, see below, "free speech" isn't without
consequences (after the fact).

You're wrong, and you truly need to rethink your position. Censorship is
black and white. Either speech is repressed, or it's not. There is no
middle ground.

 

 I'm not "wrong" and there's no need to "rethink my position".

 
Of course you are. You believe use of a word may be censored without
infringing upon free speech. That's the opposite of what free
speech means.

  Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say that the use of "NAZI",
repeated umpteen times, may or should be censored. I said that *I* don't
consider such use "free speech". So I gave my *opinion*, no more, no
less.

 Censorship may be black and white, but "free speech" isn't. The OP's
"free speech" ends/is_limited where it interferes with the free speech
of others. "free speech" isn't without consequences.

 
The consequences -- defending against a lawsuit for defamation -- occur
after the speech. You argue that the speech be suppressed beforehand,
which is called prior restraint.
 
You're getting it wrong.

  Again, read for comprehesion: I didn't argue any such thing.

 Most "threats" are probably not free speech, but most of them are
probably not actionable (by law enforcement).

 

A threat has an underlying criminal act, speech used in the crime of
intimidation or coersion. It's not just words like a lame insult of
calling someone a Nazi.

 

 Agreed. I didn't consider the OP's use of "NAZI" to be a threat. I
did/do consider it a - totally uncalled for - vile insult.

 
It's his right to be an unrestrained ass upon Usenet. The consequence is
to his reputation.

  IRL, the consequence could/would be much more severe.

 Bottom line: I think you chose the wrong 'opponent'. I'm *against* the
censoring which the OP wants the i2pn2 admin to implement. I.e. the OP
is the censor, not me.

 
I'm limiting my participation in this thread to my objection to any form
of official censorship.

  If so, as I said, you should have chosen a different 'opponent'. *The
OP* is the one who wants "official censorship" to be carried out by the
i2pn2 admin, not me (or anybody else for that matter)

  I am aware that you are not in the United States.
Here, censorship is anathema in law. Europeans don't understand that
there is no such thing as a moral basis for censorship.

  Well, this European is well aware of that.

  EOD.